I have just been reading an article on deposit schemes legislation (which we helped produce) and despite almost three years of reading sections 212 to 215 Housing Act 2004, I think I may have just found a flaw in the argument that helps landlords about late protection which I had not (and many other practitioners had not) considered.

We have always held the view that if a landlord protects a deposit and gives the prescribed information, or repays the full deposit back prior to any hearing regarding the matter albeit after 14 days, the landlord will escape penalty (see Draycott v Hannells and Harvey v Bamforth for example).

However, I was just reading again the case Seghier v Rollings Bow County Court 6 March 2009 and it dawned on me is this principle of avoiding compensation correct?

The reason ... Please login or signup to continue reading this content

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.